There are only 2 genders
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
@BothAndDebate
@Arguements Bella3sp
Whether Devon wanted to make a point about how they viewed Sex and Gender as the same, or carelessness.
Allowing vagueness in title and description, lead to much of the debate being sidetracked.
'Ideas are subjective, words are subjective, and both change Bella3sp argues.
Bella3sp doesn't make the argument that sex and gender are the same,
But that they are different, though she also includes examples of intersex, to safeguard all her bases.
Devon spends too much time (Because of debate vagueness) stating that sex and gender are the same,
Which would be more fine if the debate was Sex and Gender are the same, or ought be viewed as the same.
Mostly Devon loses arguments because his title and description, as well as arguments made many fractured pieces in various directions.
Bella3sp was given at 'least two goalposts, of which she only needed to score one of any to win,
Whether gender as language changing, intersex as an example,
You 'don't want to give your opponent multiple goalposts.
. . .
If Devon had focused more on historical examples of people defining sex and gender as the same, I think they would have done better, but again,
Devon not only has to prove claim they are the same, but that there are only 2.
And debate doesn't even say 'human.
@Sources Tie
Both sides used sources to try to back their claims.
@Legibility Tie
When a debate goes to piecemeal, with a ton of grey boxes,
And 'many words sentences specifically disagreed on,
My concentration in following the debate, fractures a bit,
Though this might just be a me thing,
But both did this.
@Conduct Tie
Bella3sp didn't seem to intentionally try to skip rounds,
Devon Extend doesn't count as argument,
No one 'particularly rude, tie.
@NoOneInParticular
I suggest you don't read this, as it's more for me,
But fee l free if you want to, it just rambles, so I don't recommend it.
Useful generalities, a trait of people using concepts,
Men are stronger than women,
People 'specifically mean human men and women,
Praying Mantis Females are stronger than Male Praying Mantis,
People with X or Y genes,
I don't really know how that works with various animals, or plants.
Dresses are feminine,
Eh, kilts, togas.
"Gender is something you choose to identify as"
Doesn't really make sense to me, or gender in general.
Some cultures used eunuchs in harems,
Some people choose to identify as American, yet xenophobic Americans might not call them American, even if according to the law they have papers,
Course one's 'sex ought make them a man or a woman, objectively,
But then some people get treated as the opposite sex in prison,
Even the objective, is subject to subjective people,
Rambling.
'Does gender only appear in humans,
I know 'self identifying comes up a lot in some definitions of gender,
But I've see videos of seals abusing penguins,
Yeah this thought is weird, but eventually in my mind it makes an example.
Course one doesn't identify an X as an X, even if one treats an X as an X, they think of it as an X I can use to X.
The 'gentler sex,
Some Victorian man might say of women,
But even an effeminate man, wouldn't say the effeminate man was 'of, but perhaps 'like the gentler sex.
There's really not too much for me to say here.
I agree with Con that this debate got pretty far off topic as you each went into discussions of behavior rather than the existence of distinct genders. It didn't help the debate to go off on this tangent or any of the others regarding how either side felt on the issue. It's a fact debate. Debate the existence of the fact.
Pro basically lets Con both get the ball rolling and, by virtue of his position in the debate, have the last word, which is never a great combination, but it's still possible to win even giving yourself that kind of handicap. I will say that Pro automatically wins conduct due to the forfeit, but let's talk about the arguments.
First off, by conceding that intersex occurs in humans, Pro concedes the debate. If I buy his argument that gender and sex are identical, then intersex + male + female = 3 genders. That's more than 2, so I consider that a concession of the debate overall.
Second, I'm not really sure I understand Pro's argument. He largely dismisses the definition provided for gender by Con, arguing that a social construct is not objective fact and therefore does not exist. In that case, I think Pro needed to offer an alternate definition rather than just saying that Pro's definition is flawed. If you want to argue that the lack of any external validation necessarily makes the entire concept of a social construct or self-definition invalid because it is fabricated within the mind, then there needs to be another definition on the table. Asserting over and over again that sex and gender are the same doesn't offer a definition - it's just Pro clarifying his own views on the issue, not providing any way to externally validate his views. The closest I get to that is an argument from R2 about how job applications use the term gender in the same way he would use sex, which doesn't tell me why they're correct. Again, this is a fact debate. You have to establish that this is the fact. So, whether I agree with Pro or not, Con's the only one that's providing me with a definition I can use to adequately explain what gender is. Even if it's entirely fabricated, if that's part of the definition of gender, then I'm forced to accept that gender is fabricated... which isn't a great position for Pro to be in, since that necessarily means there can be more genders resulting from that fabrication.
So, long story short, Pro is asking judges to do a lot with his arguments and not really justifying it. He's asking that judges conflate sex and gender because the definition for gender necessitates some subjectivity, but doesn't tell me why subjectivity invalidates the definition or provide me an alternate definition to work with. He cherry-picks portions of his opponents' definition to make the case for him, but excludes essential context. Even if I end up agreeing entirely that the perception of gender clashing with sex is delusional, that only establishes that gender and sex should consistently align, not that gender doesn't exist at least somewhat independently of sex (they can be wrong in their perceptions of themselves, but that doesn't make the perception nonexistent nor does that tell me that that perception is not their assumed gender). I think if the debate had stayed a little more focused on the topic, this might have been more interesting, but as it is there's just not a lot to pick up from Pro's side in the debate, whereas Con better establishes the facts regarding gender. So that's where my vote goes.
In short:
Aside from pro repeating "Sex and gender are the same" like a broken record, he attempts to flip con's evidence which states "male, female or nonbinary" as proof there are only two. That set obviously contains three. While con doesn't explicitly mention it, 3 <> 2. Con hammers this home, and pro drops it, leaving "intersex" as a third gender by their own standards.
At length:
Pro makes a case reliant upon sex and gender being identical. Con dismantles this with definitions, and shows that gender is a variable social construct.
Pro counters that social constructs aren't real... This is a line of reasoning which cannot go anywhere, since language is a social construct. Misrepresenting cons definitions (which con caught and well defended) does not help this at all.
Pro points out hermaphrodites exist, con points back to sex and gender being different words.
Pro does better later with pointing out perception and reality differ. A major weakness to their case is not leading with this. As is, it's presented as a sub point mid-way into their case, after arguing people cannot do things people self-evidently do. He goes on to argue gender should be "male, female, or sometimes intersex" ... Con wastes no time in catching this, even while pointing out it's wrong when applied to gender.
Pro argues non-cisgendered people are offensive (after arguing cis-gendered shouldn't exist, which leaves me scratching my head since if we got rid of everyone not trans... 🤯). It spirals off on this side tangent, including a video of a very beautiful woman complaining about the term cis (ok, some women are offended; this doesn't support the resolution).
Conduct for forfeiture.
If this was not a point system, I would vote tie . However, some points may be more than others.
first I will explain sources. Both provide exallent sources to express their position. I dont know why con gave restrictions on sources, but I could be reading that wrong - benefit of doubt. So tie there.
Conduct? Unfortunately pro does go off topic. Im really torn about this point because con forfieted a round. I half want to votes as others do, but half dont. Others have voted against those who forfiet. However, considering any debate, what affects audience more? Taking debate off topic. Wherher on purpose or accident, pro takes away from main debate. I see all of this as conduct. Also, I dont like it when people say " I proved x" we gotta stop doing that as a collective.
Which participant's arguments had significantly better legibility?
Neither. Debate started with circular reasoning, and then continued with it. This is true for both con and pro. I also put articulation under this category because articulation allows us to understand pro/com position as they comnect the dots for us.
Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
As I read con's approach, I got the vibe that everything is being explained to me as it is. Rebuttles including, this is x, that is y, that is z. Listing genders is prime example. However this does not explain why. Even in rebuttles.
Pro had the same thing going, but had a saving grace from a rebuttle that I think went over some heads. I am not able to determine how well Pro can articulate the point but I try not to count articulation against debators ability to convince others.
What is the rebuttle? Pro tried to point out that gender as it is understood (or explained by con) could not exist because - as con explained - was a construct. I read pro's comments to indicate that the social construct is inherently false because it is not real. I wish pro had stayed on this path and clarified why he thought his own position was accurate. Same with con.
Sex, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, and gender are all different things. Pro tried to conflate Gender and Sex as the same thing and then indirectly admitted that intersex is a thing.
Pro had a few very clear examples on how to tie this up in a bow and mails it for Grandma's birthday, alas they did not. It was a very one-sided debate. Pro had a very poor start. They did not recover from it in whole or in part. I am not sure why this turned into a huge list of activities, actions and gender identification tendencies other than, it proved the point.
I accept the distinction between sex and gender as presented by Con.
Pro gets a point for conduct on the forfeit.
Note to Pro... you need to open stronger.
Oh no, I'm being serious, and just forgot or never knew if you were a guy or girl,
People's use of the word gender just has me confused at times, so I just put both in there. Sex/Gender.
I'd say ideologically I view myself more on your side, in 'this debate,
'Generally speaking,
But I also think you didn't do yourself favors in your structuring of the debate.
Are you being serious? Or sarcasm I can't tell. I assume cuz you picked Con as winner and you're purposely calling me they? Or am I tripping lol
Heh,
Quite possible I knew it in the past but forget,
But jah, not knowing or forgetting your sex/gender, was a reason for me saying they.
@Barney Ok I'll take that into consideration
@Lemming I thought you already knew I was a guy especially our prior interactions but just to let you know I'm male. I see you kept saying "they" in the vote instead of he. I admit I kinda have that habit to say they as well because I don't wanna offend anyone especially nowadays but don't worry I'm not one of those "did you just assume my gender" people lol. No offense to those people
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Thanks for voting. You are right I should've opened stronger. I should've waived first round. I do better letting someone post their argument first and then me responding to it
No problem, I don't mind. Thanks.
I'll work on it, should have it up before the deadline.
they're both the same . i see you are saying gender and sex are different , i accept your opinion . agree to disagree
Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary
Sex is usually categorized as female or male
Both definitions include "categorized as male or female" this is proof that sex and gender are in fact the same.
ok
so 1+1=2
and 1+1+1 = 3
since both include "1+1", 2=3.
(just a fallacy i noticed in ur args_)
I also @'ed everyone since its 4 days left of the voting period and I don't wanna lose off of one single vote I want it to be different votes and opinions. Plus I knew for some reason this first vote was gonna pick Con. Just that feeling. Not saying this to be negative just saying I knew it'd happen lol too much like right.
And ok try and vote and see what happens ig.
It means your Rating won't change, whether you win, tie or lose.
What's the difference between the two? Sorry haven't been on this site in a while. Is it because I started on here again last month so fairly new or what? Does it mean you can't vote on it since it's standard?
Oh ok thanks for letting me know. Alright I won't take it personal then, all good.
This is not a Rated debate. Neither was your rap battle against 'FishChaser' who has basically self snitched who he is by acting so obviously like Type1 at this point. Idc as I believe he is reformed relatively at least, still rude as hell.
The default changed since your King8 account. It is now defaulted to Standard which means unrated. The alternative is Rated.
Just to let you know, some judges don't vote conduct based on a forfiet. Even some people like AleutianTexan don't vote on conduct at all and only arguments.
Though, I am alright with losing conduct, just wanted to let you know.
What do you mean unrated?
I worked hard in this debate so I want a lot of people to vote, that's why I @'d everyone as I assume they know how to vote.
You can vote against me, just make sure it's fair and aligns with the rules. I don't take votes personally.
This is unrated like your rap battle against Type1, first of all. So idk why you care that hard to ping that many.
Secondly, what if I vote against you?
Are you sure you want to force me out of neutrality?
Please vote
Please vote
Please vote
I never thought I would witness such a controversial topic on DART.
Science has not developed in regards to gender. It’s been perverted by those I previously mentioned, for whom the left and the trans cultists have honed in on to capitalize in their excuses to rationalize and justify their sexual perversions. Fact.
Look at the dates.
Also, science has developed and changed defintions to match with it.
Not that I know the actual scientific backup behind your defintions, hints the " ".
“… has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.”??
You’re kidding, right?
Current iterations of the term are what lack any scientific evidence.
You clearly don’t know the true origins of the whole trans/queer ideology movement, do you!?! It started in the early 90s with so-called German sexologists who were proven Pedophiles and frustrates sexual deviants. That’s where the term cis/cissexualuty/cisgender came from - pedos!!!
Yeah.. my loss would've been an automatic loss in this debate if I used that defintion. It favors pro more than it would favor me in almost all if not all aspects.
But as said, I won't be using a defintion that now, has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.
Your loss. Not mine.
The original meaning of the term retains the most integrity.
The bullshit twisted made up convenient definition. Is merely to pacify the left and the clowns claiming otherwise using their fictitious made up term. This includes any leftist with an agenda with a piece of paper from some university over their head claiming to be a science major.
Thanks, but no thanks?
I get you have defintions you like, cool, but for this debate I won't be using them.. Either its an old defintion as I see from dates and now has been changed more in society or just simply not fitting for my idea in this debate.
Many defintions from health care to other websites have far different definitions that are like mine. And so far, I agree with those definition but thanks.
Your definition of 'gender' is all wrong:
gender (n.)
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)). Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else."
The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
Your definition is the liberal made up term.
bump
Sure
My bad, looked at the time per arguments do you mind increasing to a week?
Otherwise, I might lose track of time.
Sorry I meant to be Pro. Got it confused. Thanks for commenting about my mistake
You want to be con?